2016 (2) TMI 858 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of the condition of pre-deposit and stay of the recovery - non speaking order passed by the tribunal confirmed huge tax demand - Held that - without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, these appeals can be disposed of by accepting the statements made on instructions as undertakings given to this Court. Now, Ms. Badheka, appearing on behalf of the appellants - dealers in all these appeals shall be provided inspection of all the relevant records and documents from the files of the Assessing Officer and the date and time for such inspection to be determined by previous appointment. After the inspection is taken and completed, which entire exercise shall be done within four weeks from today, within two months thereafter the Assessing Officer shall pass a reasoned order and after hearing Ms. Badheka and duly noting and considering all the contentions raised before him, such order shall be passed and duly communicated - Matter remanded back.

Issues involved:
Challenging order for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending statutory appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Question of Law Regarding Tribunal's Order:
The appeals challenged the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's order seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending the disposal of a statutory appeal. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in passing a blanket order fixing a large part payment without considering individual facts and complaints regarding finalization of assessment ex-parte, which was seen as a breach of natural justice principles.

2. Complaints and Investigation:
The appellant complained that the Investigation Branch inspected the premises and took possession of files, including data from the appellant's computer. Files from the office of a Consultant were also taken, leading to concerns about lack of access to necessary documents for defense against allegations. Despite requests for copies of returns and other documents, an ex-parte order was passed hastily.

3. Appeal Process and Tribunal's Decision:
The appellant challenged the orders through various levels, including the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision, as argued by the appellant's representative, was criticized for a lack of detailed reasoning and insistence on a deposit of the entire refunded amount, which was viewed as a flawed approach affecting the appellate process.

4. Fresh Assessment Orders and Resolution:
After raising objections about the ex-parte assessment orders, the Court enquired whether the Revenue would agree to pass fresh assessment orders, providing access to relevant records for the appellant's consultant/advocate. The Revenue agreed to pass fresh orders, with the condition that the appellants submit to the authority's jurisdiction without objections.

5. Court's Decision and Directions:
The Court, without delving into the merits of the controversy, disposed of the appeals by accepting undertakings from both sides. The appellants were granted inspection of relevant records within four weeks, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order within two months after the inspection, considering all contentions without influence from previous orders. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on jurisdiction or merits, leaving room for all contentions to be raised before the officer.

6. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court provided a structured resolution to the appeals, ensuring a fair process for the appellants to present their case and for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter without being swayed by previous orders. The judgment aimed to uphold principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the tax dispute resolution process.

← Previous Next →